Perhaps more accurately, that’s not how people invested in the upholding of conditions that violate the law want the law to work.
11 Likes
Wait, so acknowledging the depth and breadth of racism in this country makes certain people uncomfortable, so they use their positions to rationalize such racism out of existence? Wow, I had no idea!
/s/s/s/s
6 Likes
Welcome to Amurcah!
5 Likes
I think the entirety of her past record should be reviewed then (later) compared to her responses in the confirmation hearings. If there are any glitches (however slight), then a (hopefully) Dem Congress should impeach her and have her removed, assuming she makes it to the bench.
2 Likes
I’ve read that her qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court are indeed very thin.
it completely ignores the mindset of the supervisor and the type of environment they created before the utterance
regardless of when it was said, it clearly highlights what the supervisor thought was acceptable behavior. it therefore directly connects the past experience of any and all employees at the workplace.
if the supervisor thought it was okay ever to use that word and all that it implies then we know what it must have been like to work for them
4 Likes
I’m saying no such thing. However, the court requires that the plaintiff prove that the supervisor in question (or other people in the workplace, though the case seemed to be concentrated just on the supervisor) was prejudiced and hostile against black people, rather than having a problem with just the plaintiff for reasons unrelated to race. And the court decided that a black person uttering a racial slur during an argument with a belligerent former employee who was fired for cause was not sufficient evidence that that black person uttering the slur fired the former employee for being black. That in this particular case, more than a single slur during an argument after he was fired was needed to prove he was fired as discrimination.
2 Likes
Someone uttering a single slur after an argument, can indeed be indicative of deeper problems, though. Even if they were fired “for cause.” 
Given that we live in a deep racist society that has real problems acknowledging that fact, it’s probably better to ere on the side of caution. I remain not a fan of this ruling and it concerns me about her ability to rule on cases related to race.
Racial slurs should not be uttered by anyone in a work place, for any reason and doing so is always creating a racist work environment. Full stop. If I get into a fight with my boss, and he calls me a c*** that’s misogynistic, even all other considerations aside (even if I suck at my job and have indeed been an asshole). Someone who can’t control themselves in that regard probably doesn’t need to be managing others. Ignoring the power dynamic between the employee and management papers over a host of systemic problems in the American work place.
8 Likes
Yes, her behavior is right in line with the “conservative” principle that rights or privileges are generous grants from superior beings to their inferiors. Barrett isn’t the first to “rescue” children from their Blackness by offering them entry into their betters’ world. Of course the kids will never be quite the equals of their rescuers. They’ll still be expected to show their gratitude by becoming “conservatives” themselves. Similarly “conservatives” insist that poverty be addressed by handouts from goodhearted charities who exhort the poor to try harder. In this view even a job is a grudging gift from an employer to an inferior who should be eternally grateful to receive this undeserved largesse. This sentiment drips from every mouth trumpeting “original intent,” “rule of law,” or “individual liberty.” The bottom line is, “We’ve got ours, we deserve it, we want to keep it, so fuck the rest of you.”
3 Likes
But none of this would be up for discussion, however, if the nominee were a man. His family would have gotten a brief mention, and then nothing, whatever the race or adoption status of the children. All of this would still apply, but no one would be tying themselves up into knots trying to bring the issue up.
I agree with your analysis here on why some white evangelical Christians go for international, trans racial adoptions. I just think we wouldn’t be talking about if if this nominee were a man. I kind of wish we could stick to the issue of her rulings rather than her fertility and fitness as a mother to children of Color.
9 Likes
Apparently if you’re an Originalist you don’t even have to know what the Constitution says in the first place!
I was expecting this to be a Democratic “gotcha”, but nope, it’s actually a Republican-thrown softball that she still flubbed the shit out of. (Shocker that a wealthy white person forgot about “petition the government for a redress of grievances”)
8 Likes
Just because it was a hostile working environment doesn’t mean it was a hostile working environment.
5 Likes
Popehat’s analysis:
4 Likes
The conclusion sums it up:
You could argue that it’s too hard to prove racial or sexual harassment under Title VII, that the “severe or pervasive” bar is too high, that judges are too skeptical of claim, or that the system doesn’t provide the resources necessary for litigants to pursue meritorious claims. What you can’t argue, if you’re minimally informed or honest, is “Barrett says the n-word doesn’t create a hostile work environment and even Kavanaugh thinks it does.” There are plenty of reasons to oppose Barrett without lying or misinforming people about the law.
Not trying to assist her, but Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t know ONE OF the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. Come correct if you’re going to insult someone’s intelligence. 4/5 points.
2 Likes
I don’t understand this comment. Normal usage of “knowing the 5 freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment” is that one would be able to list all 5 of them. If you can’t do that then you don’t “know the 5 freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment.” even if you can list 4 of them. So what exactly are you saying?
Frankly, I don’t see how she could not have the whole damn thing memorized verbatim and be able to speak clearly about its meaning.
2 Likes
Grammatically, he implied she knew none of them. Four out of five is much better than none.
2 Likes
Look, she’s a shitty judge and will be an even shittier justice. But pretending that the First Amendment has five clearly articulated freedoms in it is bullshit.
Here’s the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is freedom of religion one right or two (freedom of exercise and freedom from establishment)? Is the right of peaceable assembly merely a right of peaceable assembly or a combined right of assembly and petition? Are any of these rights individual rights, or are they merely prohibitions against federal law?
Originalism is dumb. The Constitution isn’t clear. Amy Barrett is a partisan hack, no matter how smart she is. But this is not even close to the best argument against her.
Because smart people have been debating about its meaning for 233 years or so?
1 Like
Just so I understand your claims about language:
Suppose that you know Mary and Susan but have never met Greg. Suppose someone asks you, “Do you know Mary, Susan and Greg?” According to you, the answer you would properly give is “Yes”?
The answer I would properly give is, “I know Mary and Susan, but not Greg.”
He stated she didn’t know the five freedoms. In fact, she knew four of them.
All I’m saying is give her credit where credit is due, or you look worse than her.
ETA: Isn’t this the kind of fallacious behavior we’re trying to combat in the Trump administration? We don’t need to be civil, but we definitely should not be sneaky liars.
3 Likes
